namark @namark@qoto.org

@Shamar no wait, division breaks it, so unsigned integers aren't quite finite fields. Still rings I guess, better than nothing, but not sufficient for all use cases.

@Shamar int64_t is not allowed to overflow, so it is not a ring. If you rearrange/transform formulas according to rules of a ring you might break something that was carefully crafted to not overflow.
uint64_t however is a finite field.

Ring could be a useful concept (type requirement), but so many things can be rings that as a specific type it's meaningless.

@digital_carver @vim semicolon is used to repeat an f, this is blasphemy!

@olamundo

@olamundo It does look better black, doesn't it... should be easy to do that with gimp, just create a black background layer, and put the image on top. I'll show how when I get back to my computer.

@olamundo that region is from outside the image, so there's nothing there @_@

@olamundo #invertthat

@mikelalasmuto #invertthat

I wrote

container.push_back(item);
auto& new_item = container.front();

and suffered grave consequences.

From now on i will only write

auto& new_item = container.emplace_back(item);

#cpp

@VD15 @georgia flavors are nice and all, but wouldn't the best chocolate bar make you imagine you have to sprint away from an angry bear, so you don't get fat?

@MutoShack@functional.cafe Trains don't need tires. A 4 wheeler is more robust, but some applications might call for 3, 2 or 1. The quickest decision is a leap of faith and the safest is being idle. There are always trade-offs and people don't like when you make decisions for them. The key is to find and expose the lowest common denominator abstraction, the wheel. Imagine a concept of a car without a concept of a wheel. How bizarre would that be. Many such things in our industry.

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe I was hoping you would convince me instead, but I'm dismissed as usual.

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe initially: copyleft requires copyright to fix the broken culture and the industry, and people who want to abolish copyright on principle, are also against copyleft and don't want to be associated with it.

Then the conversation went all sorts of ways. I thought you were enjoying it as much as I.

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe trademark is based on the same fundamental concept of intellectual property, that is if someone uses the same or similar "mark" even without an intention to confuse anyone, they are in violation of trademark. It's like if someone younger than you having a similar name to yours immediately made them guilty of impersonation and on the defensive, without you having to prove/demonstrate their intent first. There are some protections in place, but they don't always work in practise (like fair use). It's not a substitute for copyright or patents, but the overreaching aspect is similar. Like when you just happen to come up with the same idea, you are still in violation of the patent.

I don't know anything about tobacco industry.

I'm itching for you to address my argument instead of just stating the opposite. Copyleft requires to share copies or derivative works on same conditions, how will this be enforced/encouraged without copyright law? What would be the substitute? To clarify, for digital media this means that you are not allowed to distribute it on devices(platforms? mediums?) that might in one way or the other prevent exact copies from being made. For programs this means you must share the source, cause the license is applied to the source. Copyleft uses the exact same mechanisms as copyright, except it turns it upside down and inside out, with the intention to create a level playing field where this alternative culture can compete fairly with the status quo, and form its own industries, as it has been repeatedly proven that this culture is superior for progress, at least in technical fields. This is clear even to current monopolist in those fields, whose last line of defense had become permissively licensed projects (under the false pretext of more freedom), proprietary forks of which they use to stay competitive, and they don't need copyright law for that. Nvidia's proprietary toolchain and drivers, apple's proprietary toolchain and platforms, google's proprietary platforms, all the proprietary firmware, SaaS etc. are not going to go away with copyright. They'll just be called closed instead of proprietary I guess. It wouldn't be up to them to come up with new laws, it would be up to you to organize yearly worldwide "IT break and entry" or "violate yer nondisclosure" events. So much fun!

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe Yes I meant what you meant, excluding trademarks, just no term for it as per this thread, though trademarks can be quite overreaching as well, I assume because of being part of same family of laws, and not something more sensible.

I would doubt a conspiracy of lawyers, the good professionals would not have such an incentive, and the bad are at an obvious disadvantage.

The wealthy do have an advantage, but that is for other reasons and applies to almost everything.

The "share-alike" expectation/requirement of copyleft goes directly against abolishing the laws immediately, unless you implement some other laws that accommodate that. Copyright culture and industry is established and reigns supreme, even if laws are abolished the monopolies are there and will not go away. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple says that they are not selling computers anymore but just renting them, and spin up a marketing campaign that would somehow make that appealing. Copyleft strives to replace that industry and culture, more than just change the laws. From the perspective of copyleft there is no reason to give up these tools, as the "other side" has used and abused them to full extent already, and as the victor has even less need of them now, especially in software where most people are content with binary blobs or SaaS as long as there is no intrusive DRM.

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe
Where did I say they shape the laws? The more I analogy, the more I regret. The laws in the analogy do not correspond to laws in reality.

Lawyers are specialists who work for people, and with their help/service anyone can have a say/influence. But that is beside the point. If no creator invokes copyright, it would be as good as non existent, regardless of the opinion of lawyers, judges, governments or god. Culture trumps law. Still beside the point. I was just trying to explain why someone calling themselves anti-IP might not want to be associated with copyleft at all.

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe I'll match the paragraphs with replies in order:

I feel I must apologize for expressing my observations without the approval of the one and only god, the poll, and its prophet the survey.

Consider the overall meaning expressed, rather than chasing after "well-defined" terms. Words are best effort.

Human nature did not change for the duration of said history, that is the meaning of the word "human". We do not call every living being form a single cell organisms to large communities of individuals human. IP law in it's entire complexity is not natural, it is based on a natural tendency that is trivial to observe.

I'm sure you personally are most exceptional... and pedantic.

I don't know what decisions you are referring to. Experts most definitely need to make many decisions to be useful to the society. I was trying to explain how even the experts whose profession is directly affected (and who are against IP) disagree.

I did not present any such dichotomy. I did not mention speed or time or a difference in the end goal.

The analogy was meant to explain the difference in the approach, not model a government or a legal system. The community is programmers/writers/painters/musicians, the laws are licenses on their works, and the book is copyright law. There is a certain reductions of dimensions to simplify the picture, as that was the whole point of the analogy.

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe @kensanata@octodon.social average person would usually be in favor of copyright, as it is a natural tendency. "They stole my idea!" is something we all felt, and is hard to not be empathetic towards. That said there shouldn't necessarily be a law protecting that culture, but that's not in the realm of the average person, it is in the realm of the experts (be it in law, or specific industry where the law applies heavily). In the realm I'm in, I observe a divide between those that wish to abolish IP law on principle, and those who want to use it to change the overall culture, eventually deprecating the law. The latter is more often associated with the word copyleft, as the fundamental requirement to "share back" is usually based on IP law, even though going directly against the IP culture. In a way it is ironic, additionally serving as a demonstration of the overextension of the law.

An analogy I was pondering on lately: Your community abides by the laws of a book, that everyone gets to write something in. You being one of these people are against this practice and when it comes time for you to write something you could either:
1. not even show up, or if forced, write an equivalent of a no-op instruction: "Everyone should do whatever they want".
2. show up asap, and write down a verbose protest: "Nobody should abide by any law of this book except this one. No other law in this book can override this one. No further laws are allowed to be written in this book except to reinforce this one, yada yada yada, I hate this book".
The latter is clearly a stronger protest, but as it is also clearly uses the books "power", someone who is religiously anti-book would be against that.